Science cannot explore what unity is not. Why?

Answer 1

Unity may be considered how things cohere as a comprehensible whole. This often means that we abstract a meaning from diverse things in order to understand their unity. For instance, we may understand the unity of a book in terms of its paragraphs, sentences, words, etc...but this would not be science properly so speaking. Science does not study "meaing" per se for it is not something that is objective nor can it be analyzed in itself. How we create and understand meaning may be analyzed, but meaning itself cannot. As such, when you understand unity as a meaning science cannot approach it, and the closest that it may come is understanding how different parts *functionally* create unity (e.g. the differeing parts of a computer work together in unison).

Answer 2

It is not the limitation of the Science. Science is but a way of thinking and it is for the explorer to choose and use his resources wisely.
If you are using the word 'unity' as a synonym for 'absolute' I believe your statement is wrong. Science explores relativity and rarely speaks of 'absolute quantities'.

Answer 3

Science is analytical; unity is a concept that can be explored by science only as it applies scientifically.

Answer 4

Well, Judging by the principle of opposites..If science knows what unity IS, then WHAT IS NOT is implied; inexplicit.

Answer 5

Because according to you "whatever is not as 'part,...etc' is not unity".
I don't understand what that means though.

Answer 6

I'm in need of assistance.

You have several times previously mentioned unity.

What philosophical / religious concept is it?

Curious.

You're welcome to email me with the answer.

Answer 7

you are thinking too hard. (what do you mean by unity, anyway?)

Answer 8

Yes, the corner is yellow.